net pootrality prevails

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > net pootrality prevails

«‹›10 »

pagancow: Jan 15, 2001; Video Stymie

I would be more worried if it's somehow not legal for netflix to pay comcast to put a server on their network becuase that would be "a fast lane"

Seems silly to me that ISP's can pay to put servers around on other networks but private companies cant???

# ? Mar 12, 2015 16:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 19:07

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

pagancow posted:

I would be more worried if it's somehow not legal for netflix to pay comcast to put a server on their network becuase that would be "a fast lane"

Seems silly to me that ISP's can pay to put servers around on other networks but private companies cant???

nah, CDNs are specifically excluded from the prioritization laws

# ? Mar 12, 2015 16:04

Necc0: Jun 30, 2005; by exmarx; Broken Cake

pagancow posted:

I would be more worried if it's somehow not legal for netflix to pay comcast to put a server on their network becuase that would be "a fast lane"

Seems silly to me that ISP's can pay to put servers around on other networks but private companies cant???

nope. the only difference in this example is comcast can't arbitrarily give such a deal to one company and then reject another. so basically it will work just as it did before but competitors can't be blocked out solely because they're a competitor

at least that's how the fcc is saying they'll interpret it if it comes to court

# ? Mar 12, 2015 16:09

pagancow: Jan 15, 2001; Video Stymie

Usually the FCC is very competent when it comes to writing rules for telecom stuff. However It seems like less and less technical people are on the FCC board every few years, so who knows.

# ? Mar 12, 2015 16:26

Dolomite: Jul 26, 2000; Cars & Legs

Necc0 posted:

so far it seems like all the doomsdayers are quietly ignoring it because surprise: there actually aren't any surprises in it that secretly grant primae noctis to obama or w/e

it does say on page 257 that everybody has to hail satan now

# ? Mar 12, 2015 16:33

My Linux Rig: Mar 27, 2010; Can't post for 6 years!

Dolomite posted:

it does say on page 257 that everybody has to hail satan now

Finally

# ? Mar 12, 2015 17:38

CrazyLittle: Sep 11, 2001; Clapping Larry

hail satan

# ? Mar 12, 2015 21:37

Assepoester: Jul 18, 2004; Can't post for 10 years!; Melman v2

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/13/8207895/title-ii-fcc-packet-loss-net-neutrality-rules

This week, the FCC released the new rules for internet service providers, 400 pages of rules stemming from the decision last month to adopt Title II authority. The most important news from the decision has been net neutrality � it's now illegal to prioritize certain kinds of web traffic for money � but there's a separate, more obscure provision that had raised the alarm for many network engineers, and the new rules put it in a radically different light.

The center of the controversy is packet loss, the basic noise that comes when networks lose track of data in transit. The new rules will force internet providers to measure and publish data on packet loss across their networks. The idea behind the move is simple: if Comcast lists less packet loss than Optimum, say, you might be more inclined to use their service, anticipating fewer hiccups in your data feed. Internet protocols are built to withstand packet loss, the same way a car won�t stop because of a few bumps in the pavement, but extremely high loss can still slow or stop streaming and browsing. If consumers flock to services with less packet loss, services will be forced to compete to see who can run the cleanest network, potentially leading to better service across the board. Packet loss is also a good measure for the kind of service decline you'd see if you were stuck in an internet slow lane, so groups from the EFF to the AARP had called for better reporting on the metric.

While it seems like a harmless nudge, the idea of competing for lower packet loss struck many engineers as potentially catastrophic. The problem is, packet loss isn't the best measure of a good network, and a system designed entirely to minimize packet loss might simply add more buffering, cratering latency and incentivizing slower networks overall. That led the National Cable and Television Association (already outspoken opponents of Title II) to label the packet loss provision as "a new rule that could degrade internet performance."

But now that we've got the full text of the FCC rules, the situation seems to have gone up in smoke. The FCC's initial press releases had stoked fears by only mentioning packet loss, but the full regulations describe packet loss metrics being integrated into existing requirements on average latency and bandwidth. That�s a big difference: If packet loss is the only metric, ISPs might rush to get the number as low as possible � but when it�s printed alongside bandwidth and latency, the incentives are much less perverse. Customers may not understand all the new metrics, but ISPs will be charged with balancing the three numbers, which should fend off the nightmare scenario the NCTA was worried about. As a result, many early critics have already changed their tune. Nicholas Weaver, who criticized the measure after the early FCC proposals leaked, yesterday called the packet loss requirement "an angel in disguise" for adding crucial new information without upsetting the balance between connection speed and quality.

It�s still tricky to say exactly the effect the new packet loss requirements will have. Customers may not be able to perfectly balance the new information, and ISPs could still overreact to the new requirements. Crucially, they�ll still have control over their own networks, but it�s still conceivable that network operators will overreact to the new provisions, even if they�ll have less reason to. Most of all, the controversy shows how delicate network regulation is, and how easily a minor provision can snowball into an unforeseen disaster. Luckily, in this case the unintended consequences seem to have been a false alarm.

# ? Mar 15, 2015 12:05

SYSV Fanfic: Sep 9, 2003; by Pragmatica

Cardboard Box A posted:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/13/8207895/title-ii-fcc-packet-loss-net-neutrality-rules

This week, the FCC released the new rules for internet service providers, 400 pages of rules stemming from the decision last month to adopt Title II authority. The most important news from the decision has been net neutrality � it's now illegal to prioritize certain kinds of web traffic for money � but there's a separate, more obscure provision that had raised the alarm for many network engineers, and the new rules put it in a radically different light.

The center of the controversy is packet loss, the basic noise that comes when networks lose track of data in transit. The new rules will force internet providers to measure and publish data on packet loss across their networks. The idea behind the move is simple: if Comcast lists less packet loss than Optimum, say, you might be more inclined to use their service, anticipating fewer hiccups in your data feed. Internet protocols are built to withstand packet loss, the same way a car won�t stop because of a few bumps in the pavement, but extremely high loss can still slow or stop streaming and browsing. If consumers flock to services with less packet loss, services will be forced to compete to see who can run the cleanest network, potentially leading to better service across the board. Packet loss is also a good measure for the kind of service decline you'd see if you were stuck in an internet slow lane, so groups from the EFF to the AARP had called for better reporting on the metric.

While it seems like a harmless nudge, the idea of competing for lower packet loss struck many engineers as potentially catastrophic. The problem is, packet loss isn't the best measure of a good network, and a system designed entirely to minimize packet loss might simply add more buffering, cratering latency and incentivizing slower networks overall. That led the National Cable and Television Association (already outspoken opponents of Title II) to label the packet loss provision as "a new rule that could degrade internet performance."

But now that we've got the full text of the FCC rules, the situation seems to have gone up in smoke. The FCC's initial press releases had stoked fears by only mentioning packet loss, but the full regulations describe packet loss metrics being integrated into existing requirements on average latency and bandwidth. That�s a big difference: If packet loss is the only metric, ISPs might rush to get the number as low as possible � but when it�s printed alongside bandwidth and latency, the incentives are much less perverse. Customers may not understand all the new metrics, but ISPs will be charged with balancing the three numbers, which should fend off the nightmare scenario the NCTA was worried about. As a result, many early critics have already changed their tune. Nicholas Weaver, who criticized the measure after the early FCC proposals leaked, yesterday called the packet loss requirement "an angel in disguise" for adding crucial new information without upsetting the balance between connection speed and quality.

It�s still tricky to say exactly the effect the new packet loss requirements will have. Customers may not be able to perfectly balance the new information, and ISPs could still overreact to the new requirements. Crucially, they�ll still have control over their own networks, but it�s still conceivable that network operators will overreact to the new provisions, even if they�ll have less reason to. Most of all, the controversy shows how delicate network regulation is, and how easily a minor provision can snowball into an unforeseen disaster. Luckily, in this case the unintended consequences seem to have been a false alarm.

The day freedom died and the boot of gubbamint stepped down on the face of internet forever.

# ? Mar 15, 2015 12:14

maniacdevnull: Apr 18, 2007; FOUR CUBIC FRAMES
DISPROVES SOFT G GOD
YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID

SYSV Fanfic posted:

The day freedom died and the boot of gubbamint stepped down on the face of internet forever.

it's obama's sharia law for the internet! now back to hannity and strawman

# ? Mar 15, 2015 16:02

Necc0: Jun 30, 2005; by exmarx; Broken Cake

Cardboard Box A posted:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/13/8207895/title-ii-fcc-packet-loss-net-neutrality-rules

We're trying to make hay out of this as hard as we can.

# ? Mar 16, 2015 00:19

PleasureKevin: Jan 2, 2011

http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-netflix-is-the-culprit-1426633943

in png form

http://i.imgur.com/NLasuZL.png

# ? Mar 18, 2015 04:41

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

PleasureKevin posted:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-netflix-is-the-culprit-1426633943

in png form

http://i.imgur.com/NLasuZL.png

lol

# ? Mar 18, 2015 04:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 19:07

PleasureKevin: Jan 2, 2011

whatever i posted was dumb kinda

# ? Mar 18, 2015 05:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > net pootrality prevails

«‹›10 »